Will SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade?

[amorphous_constellation]

According to a Pew 2021 survey, people 30 and under are 67% in favor of abortion being legal in all or most cases, compare to 31% against and when you break it down to women only it's even a slightly bigger gap.

Hm, well that's probably the most relieving thing I've read in a while, thanks for that.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm pro-life because of my religious beliefs, but in a democracy we should go with what the majority may want, thus I am not at all willing to impose my religious beliefs on others.

I think maybe in a truly democratic society, you should go with what the individual wants. Which party is actually is favor of what the individual wants? Maybe neither

 

[ecco]

Most anti-abortionists are also anti-vaxx.
Most anti-vaxxes are also anti-abortionist.

That just shows the ridiculous mentality of these people.

Save the fetus but to hell with living human beings.

 

[Colt]

I listened carefully today to oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States, in hearing the case of Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. The questions that I heard the Justices ask strongly suggest to me that, at minimum, they'll let Mississippi stand, and very likely overturn Roe v Wade altogether.

What do you think?

Abortion needs to remain "legal" but based on more sound legal reasoning.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Abortion needs to remain "legal" but based on more sound legal reasoning.

The "reasons" for aborting, as far as I am aware, belong to the woman carrying.

As I continue to say, I really, really dislike the notion that a lot of abortions are merely substitutes for carelessness in contraception. I would much, much prefer that men and women (starting from boys and girls) were properly educated about sexual matters, and educated so as to be comfortable with their own sexuality and needs.

But, at the end of the day, only one person must have the final say on whether or not to carry a fetus to term: the one who owns the womb it's in.

 

[Colt]

The "reasons" for aborting, as far as I am aware, belong to the woman carrying.

As I continue to say, I really, really dislike the notion that a lot of abortions are merely substitutes for carelessness in contraception. I would much, much prefer that men and women (starting from boys and girls) were properly educated about sexual matters, and educated so as to be comfortable with their own sexuality and needs.

But, at the end of the day, only one person must have the final say on whether or not to carry a fetus to term: the one who owns the womb it's in.

It's my opinion that the jurisdiction of the law should begin at birth when the cord is cut. Before that its technically part of the women's body. It gets complicated when we consider that a pregnant women killed in an accident by someone's negligence is considered (2) people. Those flimsy arguments about weather a fetus is really a person, or when life begins, how many weeks etc. present legal problems for the courts to solve.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's my opinion that the jurisdiction of the law should begin at birth when the cord is cut. Before that its technically part of the women's body. It gets complicated when we consider that a pregnant women killed in an accident by someone's negligence is considered (2) people. Those flimsy arguments about weather a fetus is really a person, or when life begins, how many weeks etc. present legal problems for the courts to solve.

Agree with you that the law should hold the same definition of the "personhood" in both situations (abortion and manslaughter/murder). I rather think that's more of a philosophical question than a legal one, but since the law has to cope, my preference would be when the fetus is generally considered viable -- or at about 24 weeks.

Thus, unless the woman's life is threatened, I think it reasonable to ban abortion during the third trimester -- and to consider a manslaughter to be of 2 persons, also during the third trimester, but not before.

 

[metis]

Thus, unless the woman's life is threatened, I think it reasonable to ban abortion during the third trimester -- and to consider a manslaughter to be of 2 persons, also during the third trimester, but not before.

But what is the difference between being at the end of the 2nd semester and the beginning of the 3rd?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But what is the difference between being at the end of the 2nd semester and the beginning of the 3rd?

Pretty much arbitrary -- but sometimes you can only get as "close to perfect" as science allows, and that means drawing an arbitrary line. But really, 24 weeks out of 40 allows enough time on either side for most people, I would think.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Amen!
I can’t stand the Pro Life movement. (Not to be confused with individuals who happen to be pro life, of course. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.) The group itself though is largely synonymous with abandoning the mother and baby the moment it is born. “Pro birth” I’ve often heard it be called and I can’t disagree. If someone truly abhors abortion then they would advocate for safety nets, welfare and other social systems to support the mother and her baby. Actually incentivise a woman giving birth in a capitalist society. I say this as an anti capitalist even. If you want to stop abortion, you need to be pragmatic and work within the system. Even if that means monetary incentives. That might be abused, sure. But at least you’ve done something to actively stop abortion instead of merely banning it. Which never works and only harms women and children

They would rather punish people for "being immoral" than actually help reduce abortion by having sex ed in schools and more avenues for birth control.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They would rather punish people for "being immoral" than actually help reduce abortion by having sex ed in schools and more avenues for birth control.

Oh, yes! That is exactly right. I hope everyone hears what you said, and spreads it around.

We should all stop being mystified, terrified or obsessed with sex, and discover what a joy it is, when enjoyed appropriately. Tragically, too many people think of it (usually for reasons they got from scripture) of something shameful that mustn't be talked about.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Oh, yes! That is exactly right. I hope everyone hears what you said, and spreads it around.

We should all stop being mystified, terrified or obsessed with sex, and discover what a joy it is, when enjoyed appropriately. Tragically, too many people think of it (usually for reasons they got from scripture) of something shameful that mustn't be talked about.

Since sex is a natural drive, almost as important as food/water, since it continues the species, it seems silly to make it something bad, but they will continue to shame people for it.

 

[pearl]

Chief Justice Roberts warn the Court of the dangers of appearing political tilted.
Roberts wrote: "Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review." And "the clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law "has been to nullify this Court's rulings."

And if state legislatures can nullify decisions of the Court and destroy the rights upheld in those decisions, "the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery."

The chief justice warns: "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

Roberts's warning is that if any state can unilaterally nullify any constitutional right decided by the Supreme Court, there is no constitutional right, decided by any Supreme Court, that is protected from nullification, by any state.

Budowsky: Chief Justice Roberts warns the Court, the bar and the country (msn.com)

 

[metis]

Chief Justice Roberts warn the Court of the dangers of appearing political tilted.
Roberts wrote: "Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review." And "the clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law "has been to nullify this Court's rulings."

And if state legislatures can nullify decisions of the Court and destroy the rights upheld in those decisions, "the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery."

The chief justice warns: "The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake."

Roberts's warning is that if any state can unilaterally nullify any constitutional right decided by the Supreme Court, there is no constitutional right, decided by any Supreme Court, that is protected from nullification, by any state.

Budowsky: Chief Justice Roberts warns the Court, the bar and the country (msn.com)

As a matter of fact, the SCOTUS' approval rating is now at 40%, which is the lowest since such a poll was conducted on them.

 

[Kooky]

Roberts's warning is that if any state can unilaterally nullify any constitutional right decided by the Supreme Court, there is no constitutional right, decided by any Supreme Court, that is protected from nullification, by any state.

Sounds like that's the intended effect.